Feedback-ID: i0c21471d:Fastmail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 10:21:48 -0300
From: "Euler Taveira" <euler@eulerto.com>
To: "Ahmed Et-tanany" <ahmed.ettanany@aiven.io>,
 "Fujii Masao" <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro_Herrera?= <alvherre@kurilemu.de>,
 pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Message-Id: <09577e49-f53e-4829-916c-662bbed0922b@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAD7nQBCwWj=v0QE6HL3BDOPrbqE1raniZ6DRPi_cyLxv81+HJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAD7nQBD1iy3NAS2YRDUH+zk0g=50px_h_wRsLcFkai7R_RF6VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <202601281248.qjv5oru7hxlz@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CAD7nQBCfgCeTwO=45OXhGc=wpYBrWXJfzJKRy+T26_jALxatLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwEaBw9dd+Nzb2ETDJ-40nJTo6GRXrG_FcP0rmw3_-qU_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD7nQBCwWj=v0QE6HL3BDOPrbqE1raniZ6DRPi_cyLxv81+HJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add max_logical_replication_slots GUC
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/09577e49-f53e-4829-916c-662bbed0922b%40app.fastmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 29, 2026, at 10:01 AM, Ahmed Et-tanany wrote:
>
> That's a great point! I'm thinking we could potentially avoid
> introducing a separate max_logical_wal_senders GUC by reusing
> max_logical_replication_slots to decide whether a WAL sender can
> start for logical replication.
>
> This way, the limit on logical slots would also indirectly cap
> the number of logical WAL senders, helping protect physical
> replication connections without adding another configuration
> parameter.
>

You have 2 resources (walsender and replication slot). You are restricting a
resource based on a configuration from another resource. That seems a potential
source of confusion.


-- 
Euler Taveira
EDB   https://www.enterprisedb.com/